Animals don't use a known syntax per se, so it wouldn't be authentic translation, but a transliteration may be possible. Also, there is no guarantee that one animal doing something (like a dog's behavior for going to the bathroom) maps to many or all dogs.
Do you know how to hear the generated sounds? Pressing the buttons shows a "playing" console message but there's no audio.
I'm no ornithologist, for forgive my ignorance, but shouldn't there be bunch of papers out there where researchers try to infer the meaning of various sounds birds produce, together with a description of the sound and even samples of it? I don't know how numerous that could be, but could maybe be used as a starting point at least.
FWIW there’s no research to indicate that the sounds birds make are what we’d call language. They’re avid communicators, and some species are known to be highly intelligent, but of course it’s not like “caw” means “to fly” and “craah” is “forward”.
Not sure how everything would go, if we finally managed to talk with fellow species, given how wrong it goes even with other humans.
> … a new open-source computational tool called ZLAvian, which compares real-world observed patterns to simulated ones to determine if ZLA is present.
Monkeys-randomly-typing is one of many processes which will indeed generate sequences conforming to the former, and it is perhaps the exceptions which are most interesting.
The latter law observes that the former generally applies to sequences generated for communication, having semantics and usually a grammar. While this may be the expected finding, there is value in having this expectation empirically verified.